Subject_1 COMMONTY.
Davidson
v.
Kerr
1748 ,June 2 .
Case No.No. 6.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
These two heritors had some lands runridge and others possessed as commonty, and both willing to divide, but could not agree on the plan, Kerr pursued a division before the Sheriff, but Davidson offered a bill of advocation, because though by the 23d act 1695 the Sheriff may divide runridge, yet by the 28th act 1695, the power of dividing commonty is only committed to the Court of Session. Haining refused the advocation; but on a reclaiming bill we remitted to him to pass it;—but resolved when it came in, with a new summons of division that Davidson has raised, to remit to the Sheriff as usual to make the division, but to be reported to us.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting